In a bit of a bombshell moment, an apparent casual answer to a question about a photo on evworld, we learn from Andrea Rossi that advances in safety and control may lead to the 1MW plant being run in self-sustain mode. While any such advance would be an exciting development, it does not speak to the relevant realities of safety certificates and testing by the appropriate authorities. Unless this has been going on for some time and it is only the release of information that is new.

Question and answer follow:

Dear Andrea Rossi, please have a look to the picture at the following link: http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=2004 It is you, Stemmenos and Focardi conducing tests on the e-cat. The set-up looks quite different from what we have seen on previous tests pictures, im refering specifically to those 4 red devices on the left. There have been speculations on the internet that those devices may be e-cats in production form but i think they are just peristaltic pumps, am i right? Can i ask you what kind of test where you performing when the picture was taken? Thanks you in advance for you patience. Warm Regards, AC

Andrea Rossi July 19th, 2011 at 7:57 AM Dear Alessandro Casali: This photo has been taken during the stress test of a sery of E-Cats a couple of weeks ago, together with the Greek Scientist Christos Stremmenos. They are some of the E-Cats that will compound the 1 MW plant. In that phase the E-Cats were working making steam WITHOUT energy input. This is why you see us so focused (me and Stremmenos). The 1 MW plant, probably will work mostly without energy input, I suppose, because we are resolving the safety issues connected. The 4 red spots are pumps, the E-Cat clusters are hidden. The three characters in the photo are Prof. Sergio Focardi , Prof. Christos Stremmenos and me. Warm Regards, A.R.

***Also in the news at the same site:

Defkalion Green Technologies Interview July 19, 2011 | Author: admin

XanthiPress (a newspaper local to the region in Greece where Defkalion Green Technologies will run their first three factories) interviewed the President of the company, Alekos Xanthoulis

The reporter said that it was initially difficult to get Defkalion to talk but that since the company themselves gave an impressive view of how important the technology is and for the country, it was also important for them to answer questions from the people. This might give the impression that they were trying to hide something, hinting at a tone where locals begin to fear there may be danger in their backyard.

The report clearly states that Mr Xanthoulis said there will be a public demonstration of the first Hyperion product  producing 35KW per hour (sic)  in the end of September. Is this a press error or another sign that Defkalion is operating with a great deal of autonomy and running fast?

Mr Xanthoulis adds that they have 12 scientists working now and expect the factory to be operating in October (probably meaning that gearing up for manufacturing starts then rather than shipping products).

Eventually, 3 factories will work together producing Hyperions and a separate facility will perform R&D  the total employing between 300 to 350 staff.

A curious note is sounded that the patent will be sealed for 9 years. With links to Greek government officials you can imagine how this might be but I would be surprised if that would fly elsewhere. Published anywhere, this fact would become redundant. The whole point of a patent is to protect the inventor while publishing details to encourage further innovation

Already the rumours have started about the possible dangers. Mr Xanthoulis speaks about false reports that the factory is making nuclear bombs or about it being inherently dangerous. Those commenting on the newspapers site talk about massive dumping of nuclear waste while others say that science has not solved the fusion problem yet.

I expect this aspect will gain legs over the coming months and, if denial turns to acceptance, massive political manoeuvring of these underlying fears in an attempt to poison the well.

ETA  Andrea Rossi has just answered a question on his blog, confirming that the September demo of a 35KW Hyperion is likely an error. With this in mind, we must be wary of any particular fact in the interview without also assuming that it is all wrong.

Here is ARs response:

Dear Carlo: Probably there has been a misunderstanding, no 35 kW reactors will be demonstrated anywhere in public. In October will be put in operation our 1 MW plant. I continue to work on it 16 hours per day, and so far we are prefectly in time. Warm Regards, A.R.

Would be great if some kind of clear demonstration of the technology could take place in September. The Ecat is still hard to believe, but the way the commercial developments are barreling ahead at full speed is consistent with it being for real. I also saw news yesterday that car companies are starting to get involved. An E-Cat-based powertrain will render OPEC into a niche supplier of lubricants and plastics...

An E-Cat-based powertrain will render OPEC into a niche supplier of lubricants and plastics...

I do not expect to see an e-cat car within the next decade. An e-cat locomotive engine or ship is much more likely within the next 10 years (assuming, as always, that the thing works). This still would have a huge impact on diesel usage, and thus on diesel prices.

The same news blurb that mentioned cars also mentioned ships, so you may be right about the initial focus.

I should have mentioned/repeated that Rossi himself denied the September report, but I keep hoping that public pressure pushes them to make a public demonstration sooner than later. I don’t suppose those of us in the cheap seats have much leverage though, in asking for such consideration.

5
posted on 07/20/2011 7:44:27 AM PDT
by Liberty1970
(For by grace are you saved through faith.)

Assuming it all works you will probably see an e-cat automobile within 3 or 4 months.

That's pretty basic stuff ~ just cut, weld, snag, grind, hook in ~ you can cut an adaptive bracket for anything to anything in almost nothing.

Now, as far as major manufacturers doing anything? They'll never get in on it. Due to the Great World Wide Obama Recession labor at custom shops is too cheap, so everything is going to be custom for quite some time.

There are some challenges. First we need a safe and reliable way to produce electricity from the heat produced, in a package size small enough for an automobile.

Then we need to have an electric drivetrain. Fortunately, everything learned from electric cars and hybrid vehicles the last few years will be applicable to the E-cat, so this part should be relatively easy for all the automakers who have hybrid/electric cars on the market. (The ones that don't will get hammered and may be headed for bankruptcy.)

The key is the heat to electric conversion. I think it can be done, but I don't think there is anything off-the-shelf that can be used. I'm not well-informed on that, however.

13
posted on 07/20/2011 8:32:29 AM PDT
by Liberty1970
(For by grace are you saved through faith.)

They have made deals with car companies in the R&D sector in order to research the application of the e-cat in cars, also the same applies for ships. He also said that they made a deal with a very big company , but they will not announce that yet.

I don’t understand your post. The E-cat is a proprietary product developed by Rossi and being commercialized by Defkalion (and Leonardo Corp., etc.) Given that they are the only ones who know how to build one, why do you make mention of other organizations building anything?

16
posted on 07/20/2011 8:43:58 AM PDT
by Liberty1970
(For by grace are you saved through faith.)

I think you are correct. All those homes in the East that have water boilers will be naturals for the E-cat. That would reduce heating oil usage significantly. Stationary gensets etc should also be a high priority.

The problem with e-cat in cars is not so much technical as it is regulatory and political. An e-cat engine will need to be certified as being safe for cars. It’s less of a bureaucratic hurdle for locomotives or ships (although insurance companies will make life difficult there too).

Given the alternatives (highly flammable gasoline, acid batteries and so on), I would think an E-cat powerplant would not be difficult to certify. (So long as a sudden breach in an accident does not release radiation?)

I think another poster has the right idea about steam. We'll probably see some really funky creations from 'early adopters' who modify their vehicles to run on steam with an E-cat.

22
posted on 07/20/2011 9:44:57 AM PDT
by Liberty1970
(For by grace are you saved through faith.)

In a bit of a bombshell moment, an apparent casual answer to a question about a photo on evworld, we learn from Andrea Rossi that advances in safety and control may lead to the 1MW plant being run in self-sustain mode.

"advances in safety and control" to maybe allow self-sustaining operation??? Sorry - This one point is, to me, the biggest red flag whole shootin' match.

If the eCAT's output is unstable to the point that it can't be tapped and allow a small portion of it to be fed back to its input, what does that say about it providing usable output energy?

The device produces heat (and/or steam). We've been converting those forms of energy into electricity for many, many decades. Control systems for electricity are quite mature technology and very stable, regardless of the source providing the electricity.

I’m all for the E-Cat but I can’t see how these heating units will make my car go, not anytime soon. Now, for anything using boilers or requiring hot water/steam, like a ship, a yacht, industrial plants and of course, power plants, the E-cat looks promising.

For a car, I am imagining using a refined, specialized miniature E-cat electrical generating system powering the electrolysis of water for hydrogen. Or for charging batteries, maybe.

25
posted on 07/20/2011 11:14:43 AM PDT
by citizen
(Romney+Bachmann: Economic guy+Tea Party Values gal. I like it a lot!! No more Dick Obama in 2012!)

Let me clarify on the E-cat steam powered car: Sure, a steam engine could probably be cobbled together relatively easily. But I don’t think using steam as the motive power gets it done today. 1920, ok. Today, no. Steam isn’t going to be a ‘start and go’ engine, it will need to build up pressure, especially on a cold morning. Nor will it get you the instant, massive energy needed to go 0-70 in a few seconds getting on the freeway. Or anytime when maximum acceleration is either necessary or desired. jmho

26
posted on 07/20/2011 1:21:44 PM PDT
by citizen
(Romney+Bachmann: Economic guy+Tea Party Values gal. I like it a lot!! No more Dick Obama in 2012!)

Why couldn’t you use the steam to generate electricity (turn a dynamo) which charges a battery, which runs an electric motor?

Replace the gas engine in the Prius with a few e-cats. At 14kw/ecat, (that’s about 20hp), 5 would give you 100hp - I think that’s more than the Prius engine provides. I don’t know how quickly you can charge the batteries though.

Or use the electricity generated to run the motor directly and use any excess to charge the battery.

"First we need a safe and reliable way to produce electricity from the heat produced, in a package size small enough for an automobile."

Plenty of designs for steam cars from the Stanley Steamer up to today. No electricity needed, other than startup and to run the accessories. A hybrid would be nice to have but certainly not necessary as a first attempt.

"advances in safety and control" to maybe allow self-sustaining operation??? Sorry - This one point is, to me, the biggest red flag whole shootin' match. If the eCAT's output is unstable to the point that it can't be tapped and allow a small portion of it to be fed back to its input, what does that say about it providing usable output energy?"

The reaction has a positive temperature coefficient (if it gets hotter and the heat isn't removed, the reaction produces yet more heat). Thus it can "run away" thermally. And you are generating all that heat in a VERY small (50 cc) volume. Getting very precise thermal control with just the circulation of the working fluid in that small volume is "non-trivial". Use of a "tickler" source of electrically controlled heat that can be easily sensed (thermocouples or RTDs) and shut down quickly is a LOT easier.

"Sure, a steam engine could probably be cobbled together relatively easily. But I dont think using steam as the motive power gets it done today. 1920, ok. Today, no. Steam isnt going to be a start and go engine, it will need to build up pressure, especially on a cold morning. Nor will it get you the instant, massive energy needed to go 0-70 in a few seconds getting on the freeway. Or anytime when maximum acceleration is either necessary or desired. jmho"

LOL. There are thousands of "steam engineers" around the world, and the centuries of technology certainly hasn't gone away. And the cure for all the above mentioned are easily done. At night, just keep the e-cat "ticking over" at a low level, just like truckers do when they stop for lunch. Fast acceleration energy stored in a "pressure accumulator" (see pneumatic and hydraulic drive car prototypes). Electric drive/energy storage NOT needed except for cold startup and running the radio and other accessories.

I assume when you’re talking about a “steam engine” you are referring to a closed-loop recovery system which uses some “propellant” medium other than water...much like an automotive AC system, only in reverse.

37
posted on 07/21/2011 4:57:28 AM PDT
by ROCKLOBSTER
( I love the smell of burning Hope & Change in the morning.)

At least initially, E-cat units are not going to be so cheap. I read that Rossi is planning on pricing a 35Kw(thermal) E-cat at 5000 Euros = $7k

> At 14kw/ecat, (thats about 20hp), 5 would give you 100hp

Actually, from each 35Kw(thermal) E-cat, you could expect to get about 15hp from a fairly lightweight steam engine. Six E-cats (at a cost of $42k!) would get you up to 90hp.

However, $42,000 will buy about 12,000 gallons of gas, which can drive you about 420,000 miles in a fairly fuel-efficient car.

Therefore, if you want 90hp continuous from your e-cats, you’d need to drive it over 420,000 miles before they have become cost-competitive with a similar gas-powered car (at current gas prices).

If you’re willing to settle for 45hp continuous and sell the cars in a country with very expensive gasoline (U.K. or Israel, for example), you could expect payback in 70k miles or less, which would be reasonable.

> I assume when youre talking about a steam engine you are referring to a closed-loop recovery system which uses some propellant medium other than water...much like an automotive AC system, only in reverse.

No, Rock.

Closed-loop recovery engines require very large radiators, and are more prone to failures than open-cycle. For a compact car, they probably would be too big.

Open-cycle steam engines would be very simple, and could be adapted much more quickly than a closed-loop design.

Long-term, closed cycle would be the way to go. But if someone wants to sell a E-cat powered car next year - basically it would have to be open-cycle steam.

I’m a lot more skeptical of the on-demand motive power your micro-sized (by necessity) steam engine than I am of the actual E-cat. There is only so much room under the hood of a car, particularly a small one. The E-cat units, the electricity generator and battery will use a lot of it. Leaving not so much for a boiler and pistions, your “pressure accumulator”, hydraulics, etc. But whatever, it’s fun to speculate.

41
posted on 07/21/2011 6:05:57 AM PDT
by citizen
(Romney+Bachmann: Economic guy+Tea Party Values gal. I like it a lot!! No more Dick Obama in 2012!)

> Why? A two or even three phase turbine wrings most of the heat and energy out. Open loop would be a problem such as steam engines had where they had to stop very often for fuel

1) The steam engine in this case would be optimized for power-to-weight ratio, reliability, and low cost. Thermal efficiency would probably be 30% or less. Therefore to get about 45hp of mechanical power you’d need to radiate about 75KW of thermal output. That’s quite a bit for a small car.

2) Yes, an open cycle steam engine would need frequent ‘refueling’ with clean water. It would probably have a range under 100 miles before it would need more water, even with a pretty large water tank. So? Water is cheap, and is available just about everywhere.

Agreed, except for the one thing about convenience. I am used to filling my SUV up and going 500 miles before I have to fuel up. Even Mrs. Madâs small car has a 500 miles range on a tank of fuel. Out here in the West 100 mile range would be very painful outside of the city. Modern turbines give great power to weight ratio. That said I was recently on the USS Midway. In a tour of the engine room I got into a long discussion with one of the docents about the efficiency of their turbines (double turbine high and low on one circuit) surprisingly small units for 30,000hp.

From reading all your comments, it seems clear that an E-cat powered car would definitely be a “green” type of car: Small and rather low-powered. Those needing more muscle in their auto/truck could stick with petroleum powered vehicles. The great thing about E-cat powered car is not having to stop for fuel or for battery charging. I am assuming that once the steam engine system is filled w/ water or other fluid that it is a closed system that won’t often need additional fluids.

But I don’t really know, I am a highway engineer not an ME.

45
posted on 07/21/2011 7:37:57 AM PDT
by citizen
(Romney+Bachmann: Economic guy+Tea Party Values gal. I like it a lot!! No more Dick Obama in 2012!)

“LOL. There are thousands of “steam engineers” around the world, and the centuries of technology certainly hasn’t gone away. And the cure for all the above mentioned are easily done. At night, just keep the e-cat “ticking over” at a low level, just like truckers do when they stop for lunch. Fast acceleration energy stored in a “pressure accumulator” (see pneumatic and hydraulic drive car prototypes). Electric drive/energy storage NOT needed except for cold startup and running the radio and other accessories.”

There is a reason that the railroads gave up the fuel flexible steam engine and went to diesel.

That accumulator would act very similar to a bomb if ruptured. No 5 star crash rating for it.

Steam give excellent torque but is very heavy and doesn’t give great peak HP. It would be a lot like driving a train, 0-60 by noon.

“At least initially, E-cat units are not going to be so cheap. I read that Rossi is planning on pricing a 35Kw(thermal) E-cat at 5000 Euros = $7k”

True, but that pricing is probably based on what he thinks the market will bear, and the fact that initially he will have a monopoly. The little that has been disclosed regarding its construction suggests that the cost should be significantly lower in a normal market situation.

Use of a "tickler" source of electrically controlled heat that can be easily sensed (thermocouples or RTDs) and shut down quickly is a LOT easier.

Electronic control of the "tickler" input heat doesn't depend on the original source of the electricity that's generating the heat.

Thermocouples, RTDs, and the control circuits they drive don't care if the original electrical power is coming from the grid, a battery bank, or even an array of solar panels. (If the input power must be AC, an inverter can convert the battery or solar panel DC output to AC. If the input power must be DC, electricity from the grid needs to be rectified to DC anyway.)

"Electronic control of the "tickler" input heat doesn't depend on the original source of the electricity that's generating the heat. Thermocouples, RTDs, and the control circuits they drive don't care if the original electrical power is coming from the grid, a battery bank, or even an array of solar panels. (If the input power must be AC, an inverter can convert the battery or solar panel DC output to AC. If the input power must be DC, electricity from the grid needs to be rectified to DC anyway.)"

Of course that's all true, but remember that one of Rossi's target markets is industrial heating, so he is looking for an E-Cat that "can" be controlled based only on working fluid flow rate, which he has apparently succeded in doing.

And I think he'd like to come up with more and larger E-Cats that exhibit similar characteristics.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.